Surendrasinh Thakur & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

The Applicants have filed the present Revision challenging the order dated 16.03.2024 passed below Exhibit-39 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 364/2022, whereby the application preferred under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge came to be rejected. The said application was filed by the Applicants/accused in connection with Crime No. 295/2021 dated 20.11.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39, 44 and 45 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.

Mr. Dangre, learned Counsel for the Applicants, submits that the Applicants have been falsely implicated in the present crime. According to him, the Applicants do not possess any money-lending licence and the allegations regarding advancement of a loan to the deceased are wholly baseless. He further submits that there are material discrepancies in the evidence collected by the prosecution. The Applicants have neither instigated nor abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The alleged telephonic conversation between the Applicants and the deceased was only with a view to inquire about the health of the deceased, who had been admitted to the hospital since 27.10.2021. No such allegations were made in the statement of the son of the deceased recorded during the course of investigation of the merg inquiry registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Not only that, no suspicion was expressed against any person as being responsible for the death of the deceased. Though the deceased consumed poison on 27.10.2021, he succumbed thereto on 01.11.2021. The statement of the informant recorded on 04.11.2021 does not raise any suspicion regarding abetment, if any, at the behest of the present Applicants. On the contrary, the said statement attributes the incident to the loan availed by the deceased from a bank, his inability to repay the loan amount, and the failure of crops. The statement nowhere discloses the names of the present Applicants. The subsequent statement of the son of the deceased, Jagjit Raut, recorded on 07.11.2021, is also on similar lines and does not contain any allegation whatsoever regarding abetment of suicide at the behest of the present Applicants. The diary came to be seized on 09.12.2021. The alleged suicide note, written on loose sheets of paper, was found amongst the papers kept in the said diary. The FIR came to be registered belatedly on 20.11.2021, though the incident had occurred on 27.10.2021. Thus, there is a delay of more than 25 days in lodging the FIR. The FIR is lodged on the basis of the aforesaid loose papers, which are sought to be treated as a suicide note, wherein reference is made to loans allegedly obtained by the deceased from various individuals, including the present Applicants. The said suicide note has not been forwarded to a handwriting expert/forensic expert for analysis, and no report in that regard has been received till date. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively held at this stage that the alleged suicide note was written by the deceased prior to his death. In these circumstances, a serious doubt arises regarding the genuineness and authenticity of the alleged suicide note and as to whether the same is in the handwriting of the deceased/Shahaji Raut. Mr. Dangre further submits that the spot panchanama does not show that any suicide note was found at the spot. However, subsequently, an alleged suicide note appears to have been seized from the possession of one of the acquaintances of the deceased, and it is on the basis of the said document that the FIR came to be lodged belatedly on 20.11.2021. . Mr. Dangre, learned Counsel for the Applicants, further submits that even if the alleged suicide note is accepted, the same by itself is not sufficient to frame a charge against, much less convict, the Applicants, unless the essential ingredients of instigation or abetment to commit suicide are prima facie satisfied. Mr. Dangre further relies upon the judgment in the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State (2019) 3 SCC 315 to submit that the act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide and having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words, but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

Mr. Dangre therefore submits that mere reference in the alleged suicide note to the continuous demands made by the Applicants for repayment of the amount allegedly advanced by them would not, by itself, be sufficient to convict the Applicants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been made out. Apart from the allegations in the material collected during the investigation, there is nothing on record to show that the demands allegedly made by the Applicants for repayment of the amount advanced by them were made with the intention of driving the deceased to commit suicide. Unless such intention is established by the prosecution, the offence of abetment of suicide cannot be said to be made out. The learned trial Court failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter and mechanically rejected the application merely on the ground that the scope of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is distinct from that of Section 482 of the Code and that, since there was sufficient prima facie material on record to frame a charge, the application for discharge could not be entertained. The learned trial Court has thus committed an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 39, 44 and 45 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 are concerned, the learned Counsel submits that the aforesaid offences cannot be said to be made out against the present Applicants. According to him, the Applicants do not possess any money-lending licence. He further submits that an offence under the aforesaid provisions can be said to be made out only if it is established that the Applicants were carrying on the business of money-lending without a valid licence. The aforesaid allegations are wholly baseless and have been levelled without any cogent material or proof, only with an intention to somehow implicate the Applicants in the present crime. The statement of the son of the deceased itself indicates that the deceased committed suicide on account of his inability to repay the loan amount availed by him from the bank and his failure to overcome the financial burden arising therefrom. The offences punishable under Sections 44 and 45 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 cannot be said to be made out, as the Applicants were not carrying on any money-lending business so as to attract or constitute a contravention of Section 31 of the said Act. . Mr. Dangre further submits that Section 31 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 pertains to the regulation and limitation of the rate of interest chargeable by a money-lender. According to him, since the Applicants were not holding any money-lending licence, the question of their charging interest in excess of the prescribed limit does not arise. He submits that the learned Trial Court rejected the application for discharge without considering this aspect of the matter and mechanically proceeded on the premise that certain witness statements indicate that the Applicants had made telephone calls to the deceased for recovery of the loan amounts allegedly advanced by them. According to the learned Counsel, such material, by itself, is insufficient to attract the offences alleged against the Applicants.

Mr. Dangre, therefore, submits that the mere insistence by the Applicants upon the deceased to repay the amounts allegedly advanced by them would not, by itself, constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide are conspicuously absent in the present case. He submits that the impugned order rejecting the application for discharge is is liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside, the application for discharge be allowed, and the Applicants be discharged from the offences alleged against them.

Mr. Dangre, learned Counsel, further submits that the Investigating Officer addressed a letter dated 22.11.2021 to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, calling upon him to furnish certain information. However, no such information was provided. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer issued a reminder dated 22.02.2022 to the Assistant Registrar, again seeking information as to whether the accused persons were engaged in the business of money lending without a valid licence. Despite the said reminder, no information was furnished. Subsequently, the Assistant Registrar (Money Lending), by communication dated 07.04.2022, submitted a report regarding the action taken by the competent authority under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act. The aforesaid report nowhere shows that the present Applicants were carrying on the business of money lending illegally or without a licence. Thus, it is vehemently submitted that, in the absence of any cogent material showing that the Applicants were carrying on the business of money lending illegally or without a valid licence, the invocation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Money-Lending Act is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. The authorities are under a statutory obligation to conduct an inspection in exercise of powers under Section 16 of the said Act to ascertain whether any unauthorized money-lending activity is being carried on. However, the report submitted by the competent authority under Section 16 nowhere records any finding that the Applicants were engaged in the business of money lending without a licence. In such circumstances, the invocation of the offences under the Act on the premise that the Applicants were illegally carrying on the business of money lending is misconceived and liable to be quashed and set aside.

As against this, the learned APP Mr. Lule as well as the learned Counsel Mr. Gadbaile appearing for Respondent No. 2/First Informant, submit that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application for discharge filed by the present Applicants. The Applicants were engaged in the business of money lending without a valid licence. The suicide note recovered during the merg inquiry indicates that the deceased had written certain letters on 27.10.2021, the very day on which he consumed poison. In the said suicide note, the deceased specifically narrated the incidents of harassment allegedly meted out to him by the Applicants on account of non-payment of the borrowed amount. The Applicants, namely Sumit and Surendra, as well as Surendra's son (Anshu), have been specifically named in the suicide note as persons who had been harassing the deceased, which ultimately led him to commit suicide. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. There is material in the form of statements of witnesses who have specifically named the present Applicants as persons who were continuously making phone calls to the deceased for recovery of the loan amount. Witness Roshan Bargat, who was working with accused Sumit Chandak, has specifically stated that he had witnessed the accused Sumit Chandak continuously harassing the deceased for repayment of the loan amount. Similarly, witness Manoj Nishane, who was working with Anshu Thakur and Surendra Thakur, has stated in his statement that Surendra used to make phone calls to the deceased demanding repayment of the amount.

The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 as well as the learned APP for the State further submit that the call detail records show that the Applicants had been making phone calls to the deceased. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses substantiate the allegation that repeated phone calls were made to the deceased for recovery of the amount due. The said statements also prima facie show that the Applicants were engaged in money-lending transactions. The question of mens rea and whether the Applicants had the requisite intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide are matters that can be determined only during the course of trial after the prosecution leads evidence in that regard. The application for discharge has to be decided only to the material available on record produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has brought on record enough ample evidence to bring home the guilt of present Applicants in the said crime recorded. The suicide note, call details records as well as the statements during the course of investigation is itself sufficient to bring home the guilt of present accused can be convicted and there is every likelihood that the prosecution establishes the evidence during the trial, the conviction of the Applicants can be based upon the material produced in the charge-sheet. The application is therefore devoid of substance and is liable to rejected.

Mr. Gadbaile, the learned Counsel for the Complainant/ Respondent No. 2 and the learned APP further submit that the judgments relied upon by the Applicants arise from proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the High Court exercises a jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, including on the basis of the seven exceptions carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 AIR 604. The other judgments relied upon by the Applicants are decisions rendered after a full-fledged trial, wherein findings were arrived at on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court. . Insofar as the present application is concerned, it is submitted that the scope of interference while considering an application for discharge is very limited. The material collected during the course of investigation is sufficient to proceed against the Applicants and, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application for discharge. The present Revision Application is devoid of merit and substance and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

I have perused the material placed on record by the prosecution before the learned trial Court. I have also gone through the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that a suicide note was found during the course of investigation and that, on the basis thereof, the FIR came to be registered. The record further shows that initially, a merg inquiry was conducted under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. The statements of the son of the deceased were recorded during the said inquiry. However, in those statements, no suspicion was expressed against the present Applicants, nor was any allegation made regarding money-lending activities or harassment by any of the accused for recovery of the alleged amount.

However, later on suicide note was found and FIR was filed on the basis of suicide note. The perusal of the suicide note shows that the deceased has held Applicants Surendra and Sumit for committing suicide. The said Applicants are specifically named in the suicide note as persons who had advanced hand loans to the deceased. Insofar as Applicant No.3/Sumit Chandak is concerned, there is a specific allegation that, apart from the principal amount of Rs. 50,000/-, he was charging interest upon interest and had inflated the outstanding liability, thereby driving the deceased to commit suicide. Insofar as Applicant No.1/Surendra Thakur is concerned, there is a specific allegation that despite the deceased having paid substantial amounts towards interest, Applicant No.1/Surendra Thakur continued to demand further interest. According to the suicide note, the deceased was left with no other option on account of such demands and harassment.

The suicide note shows that the deceased decided to commit suicide on account of the continuous harassment allegedly meted out by Applicant No.1/Surendra Thakur. The suicide note is dated 27.10.2021, the very day on which the deceased committed suicide. The said suicide note is forwarded to a handwriting expert for examination however, the report is yet to be received. The suicide note specifically attributes role to Applicant/Sumit and Applicant/Surendra. The statement of witness Manoj, relied upon by the prosecution, who was working with Surendra, also refers only to Surendra making phone calls to the deceased for recovery of the amount. The statement of witness Roshan Bargat also shows that it was accused Sumit who used to make phone calls to the deceased for recovery of the loan amount. Thus, the statements of both Manoj Nishane and Roshan Bargat speak only about the role attributed to Applicant No.1/Surendra Thakur and Applicant No.3/Sumit. However, neither of the said statements makes any reference to the role of Applicant No. 2/Anshu Thakur. The call detail records relied upon by the prosecution, the statements of the aforesaid witnesses refer only to accused Surendra Thakur (Applicant No.1) and Sumit Chandak (Applicant No.3) as having made phone calls to the deceased, and not to Applicant No. 2/Anshu Thakur. The record further shows that the suicide note forwarded to the handwriting expert for examination however, the report is yet to be received.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Didigam Bikshapathi and others Vs. State of A.P., reported in AIR 2008 SC 527 was pleased to observe as under : -

Thus, in view of the direct implication of Applicants Surendra Thakur and Sumit Chandak in the present crime, as reflected in the suicide note, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient material to proceed against them. The aforesaid Applicants have been specifically named in the FIR and the suicide note as persons who had allegedly subjected the deceased to harassment and exploitation. The call detail records further indicate that repeated phone calls were made to the deceased in close proximity to the date of the incident. The FIR as well as the statements of the relatives and other witnesses disclose that, immediately prior to the commission of suicide, the Applicants had approached the deceased and were demanding repayment of money.

The material collected during the course of investigation also prima facie indicates that Applicants Surendra Thakur and Sumit Chandak were engaged in money-lending activities without a valid licence. The inspection report under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending Act was forwarded by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to the Investigating Officer and forms part of the charge-sheet. The prosecution has also relied upon the statements of witnesses Manoj Nishane, Manohar Bagde and Roshan Bargat, recorded during the course of the inquiry, which show that Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were making phone calls from their mobile phones to the deceased demanding repayment of the loan amount. The statements of witnesses Nandkishor Mahajan and Shrikant Aarghode further show that Applicants Surendra and Sumit were engaged in money-lending activities. There are specific allegations in the suicide note that despite the deceased having paid substantial amounts towards interest in addition to the principal amount, Applicants Surendra Thakur and Sumit Chandak continued to harass him for further payment. Insofar as Applicants Sumit Chandak and Surendra Thakur are concerned, I am satisfied that the material collected by the prosecution discloses sufficient grounds to proceed against them and to subject them to trial. The strong suspicion against the said Applicants is founded upon the material collected during the investigation, including the suicide note, the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the report submitted under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending Act, and the call detail records of the deceased. The aforesaid material is sufficient to raise a grave suspicion against Applicants Surendra Thakur and Sumit Chandak and is capable of being translated into legally admissible evidence during the course of trial. At this stage, the material on record is sufficient to form a prima facie view regarding their involvement in the alleged offence. In my considered opinion, therefore, the application for discharge insofar as Applicant No. 1/Surendra Thakur, and Applicant No. 3/Sumit Chandak, are concerned, is rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. The impugned order does not warrant any interference to that extent. The Revision Application, therefore, stands dismissed insofar as Applicant Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned.

The judgment relied upon by the applicants does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case there are allegations about instigation and abetment in inject proximity with the commission of suicide by the deceased. There are allegations of continuous threats, extended by both the applicants Surendra Thakur and Sumit Chandak to the deceased, which continued even during the treatment of deceased in the hospital while he was admitted for consuming poison.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547 was pleased to observe as under :-

Thus, the observations made herein above would show that the test to be applied is whether the material available on record if left unrebutted would make a conviction reasonably possible and the Trial Court is not required to examine whether the trial would ultimately result in conviction

Insofar as Applicant No.2/Anshu, is concerned, except for allegations in the FIR neither the suicide note nor the statements of witnesses Manoj Nishane and Manohar Bagde disclose his involvement in the alleged acts of harassment. The said witnesses do not state that Applicant No.2/Anshu was making phone calls to the deceased during the period immediately preceding the incident. The suicide note also does not contain any allegation that Applicant No.2/Anshu had harassed the deceased to such an extent as to drive him to commit suicide. There is no material on record to show that Applicant No.2/Anshu himself made any phone calls to the deceased or that any person acted on his behalf for recovery of the alleged dues. The evidence collected by the prosecution is, therefore, insufficient to draw a prima facie inference against Applicant No. 2/Anshu Thakur, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC or for the offences punishable under Sections 39, 44 and 45 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending Act. It appears that Applicant Anshu is implicated primarily on the ground that he is the son of the main accused/Surendra, and was assisting him in the conduct of his business. Mere association with the main accused, in the absence of any specific overt act or incriminating material, would not be sufficient to proceed against Applicant No.2/ Anshu Thakur. The absence of credible, much less cogent, evidence against Applicant No. 2/Anshu, leads this Court to conclude that the application for discharge, insofar as he is concerned, came to be rejected by the learned trial Court without proper appreciation of the material collected during the course of investigation. The impugned order, insofar as Applicant No. 2/Anshu Thakur, is concerned, appears to have been passed mechanically, without due consideration of the evidence on record. In my considered opinion, the material collected by the prosecution does not disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against Applicant No. 2/Anshu Thakur. Consequently, the application deserves to be allowed to that extent. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order: